sarek wrote:Y'all write faster than I can read, but trying to keep up.

At least we don't write faster than we think

sarek wrote:You know what Lu? I will gladly take your word for it and will attempt both methods whatever works best for me. I have lots to learn anyway and will surely find my way with this

Please don't take my word, or not alone. Actually, our Dr. Hoeller is a very good resource. Listen to his lectures too. At least the first introductory one.

sarek wrote:I keep forgetting you are a people reader like myself. However there is also so such a thing as cheerful tongue in cheekishness which I tend to liberally inflict on myself

Yes, sorry - I find it hard to keep that in mind. For some reason I always take that serious. Strange, I know.

sarek wrote:I will do that. It might be instructive if you could post a few basic methods which those who have not done this before can use.
Or maybe that is already there, hidden in the IV material.

Well, it is. But that's all very Tolkien-centered, so it might not work for you.
This is why I keep hammering on this let-go-of-rationality; because that might give you a clue about what your "point of entry" might be.

sarek wrote:I want that because that is who I am. I am an understander. I am someone who wants to encompass things, comprehend them. And once I do, go yet one step further. It is my driving force, my religion almost, as it were.

I have built my whole persona from the ground up, starting as a nerd and now functioning as a high sensitive intuitive feeler.

Traveling beyond, into the realm of the Imaginal is for me a natural continuation of my voyage of discovery both of that which lies within and outside of me.

Yes. I understand all that very well. I am an understander, too.
And that is why I am so set on trying to tell you that understanding as such won't bring you closer to the imaginal. I know what I am talking about.

sarek wrote:With the caveat that I am not only speaking of realspace but also of the much larger realm of possibilityspace.

The Copenhagen interpretation is about probabilityspace. It is the superset of all possible choices at quantum level.

sarek wrote:The Imaginal is not necessarily part of physical reality, that I agree with. Its is however part of possibilityspace which is a much more encompassing whole.

I think that this is exactly where the itch is. I dare say that the imaginal is not part of any possible (rationalistic) model.
As long as you keep adding the imaginal realm to the factual realm through these sort of links - by making it subject to any theory or model at all, you deny the very nature of the imaginal, and hence you are not talking about the imaginal but something other than that.

sarek wrote:I understand the above and as yet science does AFAICT not yet have a conclusive answer whether or not this applies to the functioning of the brain.
My intuitive hint is that it does indeed apply, but I have no way of proving it.

OK - but since theories only make sense in a rational context, they should essentially be falsifiable. If you can't do that, it isn't a proper theory.
Again I wonder why you would take the effort of creating something that isn't a proper scientific theory (because it cannot be verified) and can neither be applied to the imaginal (because of it's nature as a rational explanation)?

sarek wrote:What if my theoretical Grand Arbitrator(tongue in cheek TM) were to use the many worlds hypothesis as a way of performing the various experiments? All you need to do is retroactively pick a timeline. The inhabitants of that timeline would have no way to tell there was anything special going on with their timeline.

OK, let me see if I've got this straight: you take ten cats, in ten different timelines, and you perform the Schrödinger experiment on all of them. Why wouldn't the cats that did not survive this, not really be dead? Surely not just because they are on different time lines?

sarek wrote:Yet causality remains.

I wouldn't bet my life on that! Causality may mean nothing outside of a temporal context. Or maybe it needs a much broader definition.

sarek wrote:It could, if it were not again for that pesky creature called causality. Causality creates a link between events, regardless of whether there really is a timeline. I very much doubt if, looking back down any given causality line, there is any space for randomness at all.

As soon as you introduce probability there is no longer one causality line, but merely "paths of higher or lesser probability". This leaves plenty of room for randomness I'd say?

Davy Willis Lee wrote:However, in my worldview there are various points of intersection between the Imaginal n-space and the factual 3-space -- or if not intersections, "asymptotic regions" from which qualities from the Imaginal can be transferred to the Factual (and vice-versa). How is this possible, one may ask? I have no idea, but I have perceived it happening on many occasions.

That makes sense. And like you, I have no idea how this is possible. Or, if it is even possible at all to understand.

I wish I could find the quote from Tolkien I read the other day about Faerie gold, turning to leaves upon return to our regular state of consciousness. Perhaps one of you know which one I am talking about. That passage struck me as such a big part of my experience, for when I have a profound insight, or discover some lost portion of my interior world, when I try to put it into words to communicate it with someone who isn't able to understand it's just as if this gold turns to dry leaves that become crushed and mangled in the telling and the slightest breath can blow them from me so that I am left without even the leaves as mad evidence.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:The Land of Fairy Story is wide and deep and high.... In that land a man may (perhaps) count himself fortunate to have wandered, but its very mystery and wealth make dumb the traveler who would report.... The fairy gold (too often) turns to withered leaves when it is brought away. All that I can ask is that you, knowing all these things, will receive my withered leaves, as a token at least that my hand once held a little of the gold.

– J.R.R. Tolkien, draft manuscript of “On Fairy Stories”

Incidentally, this is true of deep entheogenic experiences also. I am one of the few that can actually talk during a Salvia trip and give a running narrative (most people just mumble or whisper, after the deep-laughter -- which is a common trait of the beginning of the trip). The diction is quite different from my default, though, and in the translation of a cascade of pure visual perceptions and de novo ideas into speech, much just can't be translated, and is thus lost.

ginnie wrote:[...] You might find some use in these lectures which I'll caveat with read at your own risk. I have briefly scanned many of them and note that they seem to ok. Although "Hermetic" I'm not so sure about. You can find them Here

Hermeticism, in general is a set of beliefs and practices whose aim is the influencing of the world through contact with the 'heavenly forces'. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but in my observations of people claiming this as their path/technique, it often shades into Ego-driven "Golden Dawn/Aleister Crowley" style Western Occultism, which from the point of view of this shaman, is totally useless because it simply doesn't work (no testable results), unlike shamanism which does (seethis post, & go to the discussion after the 6th quote).

Now, I want it clearly understood that the foregoing paragraph is my bias, and Hermeticism may well work for some; it's just that in my experience with its practitioners, they seem very Ego-driven (Ronnie was one of them -- or at any rate, that was one of the many systems he tried on like a normal person might treat clothes), whereas the very core of entheogenic shamanism is ego-death: we become the hollow reed through which the Spirits speak. So, as you can see, the viewpoints are almost diametrically opposed. The closest analogue to what I actually do would be Vodoun, minus most of the ritualistic aspects.

I did look over your reference, though, and saw that the author, P D Ouspensky, at least tries to minimize the impact of ones Ego (it seems, from a cursory scan) via a technique he calls the "Fourth Way", so it may be OK. I cannot say definitively one way or the other, as my mind does not turn that way, it turns the other way. I have no direct experience with Hermeticism in terms of use.

ginnie wrote:[...] You might find some use in these lectures which I'll caveat with read at your own risk. I have briefly scanned many of them and note that they seem to ok. Although "Hermetic" I'm not so sure about. You can find them Here

Hermeticism, in general is a set of beliefs and practices whose aim is the influencing of the world through contact with the 'heavenly forces'. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but in my observations of people claiming this as their path/technique, it often shades into Ego-driven "Golden Dawn/Aleister Crowley" style Western Occultism, which from the point of view of this shaman, is totally useless because it simply doesn't work (no testable results), unlike shamanism which does (seethis post, & go to the discussion after the 6th quote).

Dave, it was something of a surprise to see much of this labeled under "Hermeticism". Gurdjieff is very eastern and as I have experienced, much as yourself, those interested in Hermeticism do tend to be efo driven. I also have to agree that I have not seen it to work. Gurdjieff has been described as a gnostic, an esotericist, or mystic, this was the first time I'd seen any of the "Work" described as Hermetic and I was dubious about such a designation.

I encountered the Gurdjieff teachings quite young and when I first start ed to read "In Search of the Miraculous it was like finding a miracle, here were the questions I'd been asking, people exploring things that had held meaning only for keeping privately. It was my first encounter with mysticism and I held on for all I want worth.

It was many years later, I realized that I had done nothing that all my efforts were vanity. My guess is many people deeply wish to find the way to ego death but such an intellectual environment poses too great a risk.

Now, I want it clearly understood that the foregoing paragraph is my bias, and Hermeticism may well work for some; it's just that in my experience with its practitioners, they seem very Ego-driven (Ronnie was one of them -- or at any rate, that was one of the many systems he tried on like a normal person might treat clothes), whereas the very core of entheogenic shamanism is ego-death: we become the hollow reed through which the Spirits speak. So, as you can see, the viewpoints are almost diametrically opposed. The closest analogue to what I actually do would be Vodoun, minus most of the ritualistic aspects.

I did look over your reference, though, and saw that the author, P D Ouspensky, at least tries to minimize the impact of ones Ego (it seems, from a cursory scan) via a technique he calls the "Fourth Way", so it may be OK. I cannot say definitively one way or the other, as my mind does not turn that way, it turns the other way. I have no direct experience with Hermeticism in terms of use.

I am not quick to recommend the Fourth Way material, however this is a more mature group, and also, the impressions made upon me have in some sense also formed me, how I approach ideas and speak of them, in a sense it's a part of whether I like it or not.

About a little over ten years ago, I fell from my egoic perch, saw with a horror I can't describe that I had been living an egoic fantasy and I'd entered no enchanted kingdom of virtue or splendor, rather I had been sitting in a dark and desolate wasteland, and this experience parallels the scene in the "Matrix" when Neo is awakened.

That experience was the death of the fantasy and the beginning of awakening for me, tho at the time I had no idea what had happened to me and assumed that I was irreparably broken. My path since then, has been that of a wanderer, looking at the many "Ways" and perhaps finding my own.

It took me several years to really appreciate how much all the accumulation of knowledge I had so studiously aquired, was useful to me. My initial response was to just bitterly throw it all away, and so I did. I do her your concern and I will have care with what I'll introduce and by all means, I am hoping to bring all of me here, to discover who I am, to "work on my self" gently.

So, I am going on and on here when all I mean to say is I respect the spirit here.

ginnie wrote:[...] Dave, it was something of a surprise to see much of this labeled under "Hermeticism".

In all truth, it may not be, in the sense of strict definition. When reading my textual productions, when they turn towards any recounting of past personal interactions...well, that tends to be when my "inner Tiger" may come out. I have had predominantly negative personal experiences with people self-identifying as "Pagan". The problem is that even though that in itself has nothing to do with Hermeticism (which is far older) the Neo-Pagans (at least here in the U.S.A -- I can't speak for other places) are both "hegemonist" (in the since of wishing to add every non-Abrahamic religion or spirituality under their "brand-name") and heavily politicized. Both of those traits rub me the wrong way.

But those are my personal experiences and have nothing to do with Hermeticism, strictly defined.

I have seen Christianity fall under the umbrella of neo-paganism as well, tho I doubt it was met with much respect. I haven't had any good experiences with pagans either. I've developed something of an allergy to this type of ecclecticism, and I suspect hegemony is a more accurate description.

ginnie wrote:You might find some use in these lectures which I'll caveat with read at your own risk. I have briefly scanned many of them and note that they seem to ok. Although "Hermetic" I'm not so sure about. You can find them Here

I had a very brief look at those and my first impression is best described by this smiley:

Behold! Over there, it wrote:In general, mi 12 refers to the emotional centre, sol 12 to the instinctive centre, and si 12 to the sex centre.
Si 12 is the hydrogen which represents the final product of the transformation of food in the human organism. It is the matter with which sex works and which sex manufactures. It is 'seed' or 'fruit'.

x x

If that's the sort of stuff that Pagans are raised on, it explains at least the sort of cuckoo-clockwork-theory building that our resident IV pagans love so much:

Ronaldo 'Boom-Boom' the Hugely-hung, Terrific Sinister and Mighty Occult Sage-Mage wrote:
In a recent series of Seven Solemn Midnight Meetings with the Encompassing Spiritosanctuarific Boom-Clap Entities of the All (all rights reserved by me(c)), I have been given the Ultimate Matrix of Sinister Truth, in which Everything is connected with the All.
After this, I took a short break in which I re-charged my spiritual reserves by hour-long humming incantations, dressed in white sheets only, and holding the Grand-magic Staff of Ronniron (c) in the prescribed position.
This heavy excercise has infused me thoroughly with the crystal clarity of all four Ancient Directions, and then it became clear to me that I had to do another series of Univoqual Tempting Summonings, in order to surrender universal meaning to all the elements of the Ultimate Matrix.
After that, I spent three times seven long nights in the purest abstinence, in order to arrange the individual elements, and cast the Occult Black-eyed Dice thirteen times, just to make sure.

I would like to present to you here the first incarnation of the Matrix table.

My friends, this matrix is THE answer! I was very nervous to try it out, and even on my first attempt it yielded an uncanny Prophesy - of which I was Forbidden to give any details to those less informed.
I will continue to carefully cast Uncanny Prophesies with this Matrix and keep you informed, at least about how it affects me.
It is already clear that I have here been given the key to understanding of the All.

ginnie wrote:[...] I am looking at this as more of a 'world building' excercise, it is not that one can use tools from one world to mine another, because that doesn't appear to be the case yet each world has it's architecture and like the mobius strip analogy,[...]

You can under special circumstances: one has to first determine the level of measurement of the underlying data, and ensure that the data-analysis technique is mathematically justified, otherwise, one's model will be, as it were, "built upon sand" and not track the observed data (whether observed with one's retinas or with one's inner Vision (for want of a better term, "shamanic receptors")). For example, using ratio-level numerical analysis techniques upon nominal data would just be meaningless ("I predict 3.2731129 sheep to result from this breeding!").

This is a trivial example: of course, mathematically knowledgeable people would just round down to the nearest integer, but the danger is that the more calculations are done upon a false nature-of-the-data premise, the ever greater grows the skew (not inevitably, of course, but most equations and equation matrices modeling observed data are divergent -- particularly in extrapolation).

P.S. For my Visions, the level of measurement is normally nominal, as they are streams of sensorial data -- alike in form to my 5-senses data except that I didn't perceive it with my 5-senses, but rather bypassed them. I can't remember a case of me receiving even ordinal or higher-level data, except in 'dictated' form ("The black-eyed bird brings forth the blue Salvia inflorescence†. 0.3728442 End of Line.").

† I discovered this some months after that reception (it seemed "off" to me at the time, for as far as I knew, bees were thought to be the natural pollinators): http://www.sagewisdom.org/pollinators.html. Still no hit on the numerical sequence.

I consulted with Luthien before posting my reply, as I don't want to step on anyone's worldview.

sarek wrote:[...] Serves me right for not watching Dutch television often enough. Yes, I think this guy ads a major building block to my thoughts on this matter.
It is fascinating to do away with time as a Ding an sich and look for something more fundamental. However, I have not yet figured out clearly how Barbour deals with the concept of causality within his framework. At some point he claims that his snapshots can be arranged in any random order, but in reality that is not the case because not only is there change, there is also a direction to that change.

My very first starting point for the notion that time may be merely an illusion was by thinking about Einstein's thought experiments. The essence of that is that a massless particle(read photon) moves forward in time relative to its environment at an infinite speed. Thus I thought, is there, from that point of view, really a difference between the ancient past and the remote future if it takes you 'no time at all' to move between any random points in time, no matter how far apart?

First, I just want to make everyone aware that my answers come out of my own gnostic experiences, and that I know nothing of Quantum Mechanics at deeper levels, so I can neither confirm nor deny statements arising from that research, as it is not one of my interests. However, I am quite interested in topology and cognitive science, and it has always seemed to me that time, and in that sense also causality, as this concept usually subsumes a temporal component, is an illusion of human cognition.

For example, in my worldview, things can be very highly correlated, but I cannot with mathematical certainty say that one thing 'caused' another. I cannot even legitimately say that I caused these words to appear. I can make this what to some may no doubt seem a "bold" statement not only because those on the autism spectrum tend to have greater than normal neural plasticity[1] (hence the synaptic links comprising skill sets, memories and other engrams are in a constant flux), but also because cognition itself is very slippery, unlike Newtonian physics or the mixed Newtionian/Quantum physics that tends to be taught to non-physics majors, and may well be a boundaryless and/or non-orientable manifold. Which is probably why even cognitive scientists have a hard time defining it, and why A.I. research has failed as of yet to produce a true created intelligence (which again has intrinsic problems of definition).

Now, I have, in Salvia journeys, directly perceived these separate "Nows", and have even perceived myself duplicated (cognition intact) in adjacent "Nows" in some sort of meta-space, but this is not really possible to describe, because it it using linguistic rules to describe something that transcends language, leading to a situation analogous to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, as I mentioned in an earlier post about Tolkien.

So, that leads one inevitably, if one wishes to examine these questions, to attempt to directly experience them if one wishes to understand them, even if only in part (given the limitations of human cognition). In this, I agree with Luthien, as direct experience seems the only option available if one has this interest.

This "direct perception" is usually accomplished by some sort of trance induction -- and that can be by any method that works for one, from guided meditation to entheogens (I do not recommend the latter for most, especially those who have internalized Western cultural values, because it involves the extinction of one's ego during the trance period[2], and most Westerners fight against that (vigorously) -- which tends to defeat the purpose of the questng).

There are other methods as well: acoustical driving (drumming) can induce trance states, as can gazing fixedly at reflective surfaces, or a number of other methods. Each person will have a technique that works best for him or her, and some that do not work at all because of differences neural network topology -- e.g., literally how one's brain is 'wired'.

Maybe it will help but I would like to add something more to what I said above.

Like I have often discussed with Luthien, I do use a lot of words to explain my ideas. And I think its easy to get the idea that within my mind its also those words that really define it.

But for me words are merely a limited and inaccurate shadow of the real thing. Because within my mind the whole is very much of a perceptory nature and as such its not really possible to catch it in words, it can only be 'experienced' or 'perceived' and not even those words completely fit the bill. I feel that the way I perceive has a lot more to do with Taoism than with modern physics. It just 'is' and I think that it is not explicable to anyone who has not had that same experience.

One could call it a visual thing but I am not a visually oriented person. Therefore calling it visual would only be a metaphor

When you for instance speak of manifolds and orientability those immediately produce an image rather than a verbal construct in my mind. It becomes perceptory.

sarek wrote:[...] But for me words are merely a limited and inaccurate shadow of the real thing. Because within my mind the whole is very much of a perceptory nature and as such its not really possible to catch it in words, it can only be 'experienced' or 'perceived' and not even those words completely fit the bill. I feel that the way I perceive has a lot more to do with Taoism than with modern physics. It just 'is' and I think that it is not explicable to anyone who has not had that same experience.

This is true for me as well, although I do have a lot of internal visual imagery which comprises my thinking, there are other components as well, some that may be described as "emotional shadings" which, yet, are more than that term may connote to the general public because by their very arrangement, they have meaning in themselves, and many other components have no name, because no corresponding structures exist in the languages I know (English and Spanish -- and the Spanish is a bit rusty, as I haven't used it in daily speech for almost 30 years).

I like that you are familiar with Taoism, as it was a system I studied before becoming more attracted to Shinto.

ginnie wrote:[...] I am looking at this as more of a 'world building' excercise, it is not that one can use tools from one world to mine another, because that doesn't appear to be the case yet each world has it's architecture and like the mobius strip analogy,[...]

You can under special circumstances: one has to first determine the level of measurement of the underlying data, and ensure that the data-analysis technique is mathematically justified, otherwise, one's model will be, as it were, "built upon sand" and not track the observed data (whether observed with one's retinas or with one's inner Vision (for want of a better term, "shamanic receptors")). For example, using ratio-level numerical analysis techniques upon nominal data would just be meaningless ("I predict 3.2731129 sheep to result from this breeding!").

Dave, I was quite ill for awhile, I thought my lack of understanding of "the level of measurement" but nope, I would ask that you explain it a bit more in terms of how you see it? I sense you're saying something of import but I confess to being in awe of your mind and how it forms connections.

This is a trivial example: of course, mathematically knowledgeable people would just round down to the nearest integer, but the danger is that the more calculations are done upon a false nature-of-the-data premise, the ever greater grows the skew (not inevitably, of course, but most equations and equation matrices modeling observed data are divergent -- particularly in extrapolation).

P.S. For my Visions, the level of measurement is normally nominal, as they are streams of sensorial data -- alike in form to my 5-senses data except that I didn't perceive it with my 5-senses, but rather bypassed them. I can't remember a case of me receiving even ordinal or higher-level data, except in 'dictated' form ("The black-eyed bird brings forth the blue Salvia inflorescence†. 0.3728442 End of Line.").

† I discovered this some months after that reception (it seemed "off" to me at the time, for as far as I knew, bees were thought to be the natural pollinators): http://www.sagewisdom.org/pollinators.html. Still no hit on the numerical sequence.

I guess I often do not expect to be able to verify for anyone else the truth of what I discover, I can, at best, point in the direction and perhaps another can see what I am pointing to. I have verified many things for myself and even at times similar to yoir Salvia experience which is indeed quite interesting. Still, the rational mind seeks to efficiently convey information, the non-rational (i don't like this term bit for lack of better at this time...) mind seeks an intimacy with that which provides information and maybe even with the information itself. Staccato vs Flow.

Lúthien wrote:EDIT - As I wrote this, Sarek posted his reply (see above) which takes away at least part of my worry that I didn't come across

ginnie wrote:I am looking at this as more of a 'world building' excercise, it is not that one can use tools from one world to mine another, because that doesn't appear to be the case yet each world has it's architecture and like the mobius strip analogy, it can be conceived of in symbol and perhaps flags can be placed where keys can be found and maps of portals shared even if they make no 'sense' and can only be desecrated and destroyed by the rational mind.

I think I understand what you're getting at.
However, I still think that this is not quite what I meant; not what causes my feeling of impedance mismatch.
Or maybe I'm not fully understanding you.

What you're describing here looks to me as an attempt to map how the realms relate to one another.
As I understand it, this is still an attempt to create a kind of understanding, indeed a "framework" if you will; how to fit all this into your existing world-view.
But I feel that this will not bring you one inch closer to experiencing the imaginal itself.
Gee, this is so hard to explain, it's frustrating
Understanding, even of the most intuitive and non-analytical sort, is not the same as experiencing.
As I said above: it requires a wholly different faculty.

No, I don't know if it's possible to relate one world to another, they Appear to only be able to connect when speaking with those who have undergone a like experience, and those communications are often frail and wispy.

What I was talking about was the framework of the experience, in this case, the story, the mythology, the symbolism is the framework. Looking at this framework is of great interest to some and holds little to no interest for others.

Entering the Imaginal does not require any understanding or knowledge of concepts. On the contrary, these things often tend to get in the way.
Still, it is good to have a strong rational faculty and a healthy dose of skepticism. Not to help you reach Fearie, but rather to ensure that you get back in one piece or, indeed get back at all. Both Tolkien and Jung are very clear about this:

Tolkien, in Smith of Wootton-Major wrote:(...) for the star shone bright on his brow, and he was as safe as a mortal can be in that perilous country. The Lesser Evils avoided the star, and from the Greater Evils he was guarded. For that he was grateful, for he soon became wise and understood that the marvels of Faery cannot be approached without danger, and that many of the Evils cannot be challenged without weapons of power too great for any mortal to wield.

Of course the danger isn't that great that it's irresponsible to try and go there; but once you are there, it is a good to realise that Faerie isn't a children's game.
If you behave sensibly and use your skepticism, you'll be ok.

From my experience concepts need to be abandoned, the stranglehold of conceptions make the experience a no-go. However, when we wish to communicate these experiences then some framework is required.

It is not that it is difficult in itself. What's possibly difficult is to stop all these rational mind habits from getting in the way.
It may be very difficult to accept how simple it actually is.
It may be very difficult to see something very obvious that is right before your eyes.
It may be very difficult to accept that something that most children are capable of, could possibly be the key to unlock this road.
The notion that something, which our culture has dismissed as irrelevant may actually be very important and profound, may feel preposterous.

I'm not talking about any idea or notion or understanding. I'm talking about what it takes to get there.
I am frantically trying to explain something which can indeed not be explained in words but at which I can only hint, sideways, in the hope that it will somehow get across. I can tell you what won't take you there (as I have abundantly tried here).

This is so beautifully stated. I'm of two minds on this tho. No amount of intellectual information will unlock these doors, one must experience and only then speak of a thing otherwise it's all speculation. Yet, perhaps studying the frameworks allows some to approach these experiences in a, for them, safe way and provides the necessary energy to persist until they cross the threshold. You are completely right tho, standing in the vestibule and speaking of that which lies beyond is not the same as entering.

I can hand you a technique that might help you (as I have discussed with Sarek, last week).
But I cannot point at it directly. You really have to find this yourself, and my problem here is that when I read all these philosophical musings about conceptual frameworks and whatnot, consideration about a possible working mechanism involving quantum mechanics even - something inside me tugs at my shirt and says "no, that's not where you will find it ... tell them please!"

Please, please, please: do you understand what I mean??

When a great saint was asked to define God, he remained silent to point to the silence, and further said "Not that, Not that"

I understand your urgent pointing.

Ginnie wrote:I can't imagine anyone thinking you're an annoying smartypants, I think in one sense this is why we're here, there is a level of discomfort when trying to piece this together and arguing our terms etc.. I experience this too, and yet, that's what we're here for!

Believe me, by now I really do feel like I'm a huge pair of smartypants!

It's also that I absolutely dislike writing like this. I'm trying to sell you something, and I hate that. Still, I feel that I must do it, because it would be such a waste if you do not see it because the mind keeps getting in the way.

Sigh.

I think I understand, and I feel this too, because when I have felt like this I don't want to contaminate my message with undue influence because that leads to more conceptualization, and it also seems to threaten the freeness through must be present in order to look where one points. I don't know how else to express this. Influence may have the touch of violence in it?

Tho, what I am hearing is more a plea, maybe, "no, I want to journey with, my soul is lonely..join me"?

ginnie wrote:Dave, I was quite ill for awhile, I thought my lack of understanding of "the level of measurement" but nope, I would ask that you explain it a bit more in terms of how you see it? I sense you're saying something of import but I confess to being in awe of your mind and how it forms connections.

What I think Dave means is that you can only map data / experiences from one world (ie. the imaginal realm) to another (ie. the factual world) if you are very careful, and understand what the data / experiences (possibly) signify.

The "levels of measurement" concept is explained in the Wikipedia page that Dave links to, but here it is in short:

- nominal means: a qualitative description ("this vase is quite beautiful, it reminds me of Jugendstil")
- ordinal means: having a clear rank ordering ("this apple is larger than that cherry, but smaller than that melon") but it says nothing about absolute size, nor how much bigger/smaller the fruit is compared to another
- interval scale means: having a clearly defined relative measurement ("my hair is twice as long as Mrs. Thing's hair! Yippee!") but it doesn't say anything about absolute values (how long my hair exactly is)
- ratio scale also defines absolute values ("This bag of soy beans weighs 1025 grams, while that other one weighs 1064 grams! Shame!")

So you can see that it goes from less to more specific.
What Dave is trying to say is that you should be aware to what level of specificity you can apply an imaginal experience to the factual realm. It seems most people aren't aware of this "need to be careful", resulting in all sorts of weird statements.